AS Law - Sample Answer

SECTION A
Q1 (a) Connor has just been swimming at a pool where he is a member. In

the changing room there is a screen with a sign which says, ‘Keep out – staff
only’. Connor goes behind the screen and sees a sports bag on the floor. As
Connor reaches for the sports bag Magid appears. He says, ‘Stop. Don’t
touch my bag!’ Connor punches Magid so hard that he falls and breaks his
arm. Connor runs off with Magid’s sports bag.
Explain how the source material will apply to Connor. [10]
A - In order to determine Connor’s liability for burglary under section 9(1)(b), the
prosecution must prove all elements of actus reus, mens rea and coincidence of actus
reus and mens rea for burglary under Theft Act 1968. For section 9(1)(b), the
defendant must enter a building as a trespasser and must commit or attempt to
commit grievous bodily harm. Entry for purposes of section 9 means that a person
must enter a building or part of a building and it’s for the jury to decide whether entry
is sufficient for purposes of committing the crime or not. The requirement of
‘substantial’ (R v. Collins) and ‘affective’ (R v. Brown) dispensed with the case of R v.
Ryan. Connor has clearly entered the part of the changing room behind the screen and
it’s highly likely that his entry will suffice in the eyes of any right-thinking jury
member.
When a building is segregated or divided through partitions, it clearly exhibits a

building or its parts. However, in some situations, the partition can be temporary in
nature and less convincing. R v. Walkington is an example of such a case, but the
decision proved to fall on the wrong side of the life of the defendant. On analogy, it can
be said that Connor entered a different part of the building when he went behind the
screen. Simple entry is not enough, entry as a trespasser was enough. Connor was a
member of the facility and therefore, he had access to the pool and changing room,
however, the part behind the screen was clearly out of bounds for members as the
notice stated ‘Staff Only’. It will not be difficult for the prosecution to prove that
Connor was a trespasser.
Taking possession of the bag is an assumption of one of the rights of the owner. The
bag is clearly property belonging to another (Magid) and Connor’s action is dishonest
and he had an intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Connor’s punch was
the legal and factual cause of the fracture of Magid’s arm. A fractured bone is
classified as grievous bodily harm. Connor has committed both crimes mentioned in
section 9(1)(b). As per section 9(3), Connor is liable to be imprisoned for a term up to
10 years.
(b) Marie, aged 30, often visits her father at his house. Marie’s father has
given her a door key so she can get into his house if he is out. Marie is in
debt and she asks her father for some money but he refuses. Marie decides
to break into a locked cupboard in her father’s house where she hopes there
is something which she can sell. The next day Marie expects her father to be
out. She puts a hammer in her bag to break the cupboard door and goes into
her father’s house using the door key he gave her. Marie finds her father
sitting in the kitchen so she has a meal with him and leaves.
Explain how the source material will apply to Marie. [10]
A - In order to advise the parties, regarding the situation, one should check
whether actus reus and mens rea of section 9(1)(a) against Marie are satisfied
or not. The requirement of entry in a building or part of a building as a
trespasser is the same under section 9(1)(b). Marie has clearly entered a
building (i.e. her father’s house), however, is she a trespasser? The facts state
that she had permission to enter the building in either her father’s presence or
absence as she retained a spare key to the house. In Smith & Jones, a son was
considered as a trespasser when he entered into his father’s house for a
purpose other than the purpose for which he was allowed in the house.
Similarly, Marie isn’t a trespasser when she enters to meet her father, but
becomes a trespasser if and when she enters to either steal or damage any
property. Marie had the intention to steal as well as break the cupboard at the
time of entry. Therefore, the requirements of section 9(2) are hereby met.
Additionally, she enters with a hammer (i.e. weapon of offence), the
prosecution may also choose to charge her under section 10 of Theft Act 1968
because the hammer was in her possession at the time of entry. Sentencing for
aggravated burglary and simple burglary where the property is a dwelling is up
to 14 years.
(c) James walks past a shop every day where he sees an expensive jacket in
the window. He really wants to buy the jacket but has very little money.
After a week of watching the shop James notices that there is no security
system. He goes into the shop to steal the jacket. Just as he gets inside, and
before he gets to the jacket, the fire alarm sounds. Everyone, including
James, has to leave the shop immediately.
Explain how the source material will apply to James. [10]
A - Prosecution would charge James for burglary of section 9(1)(a) of Theft Act
1968. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that James entered
a building or part of a building as a trespasser with either one of the intentions
contained in section 9(2). The facts of the case state that James has completely
entered the shop before leaving the shop. However, James’ entry was not
effective to steal the jacket (R v. Brown), but this isn’t required anymore.
Ryan’s entry in R v. Ryan wasn’t effective, but he was still convicted.
Therefore, prosecution wouldn’t face any difficulties in proving this first
element of actus reus of this crime. With respect to the second element,
building or part of a building, a shop clearly falls within the definition (B & S v.
Leathley)
Public at large is allowed to enter any shop or public place without permission
unless specifically refused. If James was a shopper, he would’ve been a lawful
visitor. However, a person entering a shop with the intention to steal
something, becomes a trespasser due to the purpose for which he/she is
entering, as mentioned above in part (b) (R v. Smith & Jones). James had the
intention to steal the jacket and section 9(1)(a) is an inchoate offence
(incomplete). Consequently, the requirement of section 9(2) is hereby met. It’s
pertinent to mention that for section 9(1)(a), the defendant must have an
intention to commit one of the crimes mentioned in section 9(1)(2) and not all
three. As per section 9(3), James may be imprisoned as a result for a period not
exceeding 10 years.

AS Law - Sample Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS Law - Sample Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS Law - Sample Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECTION A

Q1 (a) Connor has just been swimming at a pool where he is a member. In

When a building is segregated or divided through partitions, it clearly exhibits a

You might also like